On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 3:44 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2023/01/29 19:31, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > I agree that if the name of an existing function was bad, we should
> > rename it, but I do not think the name pgfdw_get_cleanup_result is
> > bad; I think it is good in the sense that it well repres
On 2023/01/29 19:31, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
I agree that if the name of an existing function was bad, we should
rename it, but I do not think the name pgfdw_get_cleanup_result is
bad; I think it is good in the sense that it well represents what the
function waits for.
The patch you proposed cha
Hi Fujii-san,
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 12:17 AM Fujii Masao
wrote:
> On 2022/09/05 15:17, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > I'm not sure it's a good idea to change the function's name, because
> > that would make backpatching hard. To avoid that, how about
> > introducing a workhorse function for pgfdw_ge
On 2022/09/05 15:17, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
+1 for that refactoring. Here are a few comments about the 0001 patch:
Thanks for reviewing the patch!
I'm not sure it's a good idea to change the function's name, because
that would make backpatching hard. To avoid that, how about
introducing a
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 4:25 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> At Tue, 26 Jul 2022 00:54:47 +0900, Fujii Masao
> wrote in
> > There are two functions, pgfdw_get_result() and
> > pgfdw_get_cleanup_result(),
> > to get a query result. They have almost the same code, call
> > PQisBusy(),
> > WaitLatchO
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 11:56 AM Fujii Masao
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2022/07/27 10:36, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:33:04 +0900, Fujii Masao
> > wrote in
> >>> I'm not sure the two are similar with each other. The new function
> >>> pgfdw_exec_pre_commit() looks like a merger o
At Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:26:42 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
>
>
> On 2022/07/27 10:36, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:33:04 +0900, Fujii Masao
> > wrote in
> > I didn't see it from that viewpoint but I don't think that
> > unconditionally justifies other refactoring. If we
On 2022/07/27 10:36, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:33:04 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
I'm not sure the two are similar with each other. The new function
pgfdw_exec_pre_commit() looks like a merger of two isolated code paths
intended to share a seven-line codelet. I feel t
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 7:46 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2022/07/26 19:26, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > Could you add this to the next CF?
>
> Yes.
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/39/3782/
Thanks!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
At Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:33:04 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
> > I'm not sure the two are similar with each other. The new function
> > pgfdw_exec_pre_commit() looks like a merger of two isolated code paths
> > intended to share a seven-line codelet. I feel the code gets a bit
> > harder to unders
On 2022/07/26 19:26, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Thanks for working on this! I'd like to review this after the end of
the current CF.
Thanks!
Could you add this to the next CF?
Yes.
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/39/3782/
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Rese
Fujii-san,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 12:55 AM Fujii Masao
wrote:
> When reviewing the postgres_fdw parallel-abort patch [1], I found that
> there are several duplicate codes in postgres_fdw/connection.c.
> Which seems to make it harder to review the patch changing connection.c.
> So I'd like to rem
On 2022/07/26 16:25, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
Agree to that refactoring. And it looks fine to me.
Thanks for reviewing the patches!
I'm not sure the two are similar with each other. The new function
pgfdw_exec_pre_commit() looks like a merger of two isolated code paths
intended to share
At Tue, 26 Jul 2022 00:54:47 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
> Hi,
>
> When reviewing the postgres_fdw parallel-abort patch [1], I found that
> there are several duplicate codes in postgres_fdw/connection.c.
> Which seems to make it harder to review the patch changing
> connection.c.
> So I'd like
Hi,
When reviewing the postgres_fdw parallel-abort patch [1], I found that
there are several duplicate codes in postgres_fdw/connection.c.
Which seems to make it harder to review the patch changing connection.c.
So I'd like to remove such duplicate codes and refactor the functions
in connection.c
15 matches
Mail list logo
